closterman fact or fiction ?

Its funny though - no problem disputing Hartman's claims!

Hmm, yeah, lets not forget this guy was from France, Closterman probably was one of his hero's. It's always difficult if someone attacks your hero. Sadly he couldn't step back and swallow the facts

I'm afraid any sympathy for the chap's weak arguments went out of the window when I read his statement that Germany did not have 20mm Flak! The Flak Gw.38 and it's 'descendants' was/were, as most know,THE most common anti-aircraft weapon of the German armed forces, being vehicle mounted, ground deployed, on trains, ships, boats - basically, everywhere, in single, double and quad barrelled versions. Ah, well!

Am I right in understanding, from that argument, that Clostermann himself came to agree that he was attacked by jets, not flak? The poor chap (Thunder, I mean) obviously couldn't admit what Clostermann did - that he was wrong!!!

Hi Adler,

>The sad thing is that I do not think that anyone here said the Closterman was a bad pilot. He was a great pilot and a great ace as well.

>People are only disputing his claims. This happens quite a bit for aces from all countries. Everyone over claimed...

Inspired by the Clostermann discussions here, I just re-read "Le Grand Cirque" in the German translation by Jaime Lauer, and I wonder if he somehow invited others to look at his claims very closely by describing the pre-invasion discussion of the surviving strength of the Luftwaffe, including the British insistence to reduce both American bomber and American fighter claims by a certain factor.

"Finally, an agreement is reached to use as base figure one third of the American estimate for [kills by] bombers, and one half of the [kills by] fighters." (p. 81 of "Die große Arena")

I think today there is no doubt that the USAAF bomber gunners heavily overclaimed, but I also believe that the suggestion that USAAF overclaimed (and over-confirmed) by a factor of two while the RAF did not would likely cause a lively debate here, to say the least. (Not that Clostermann specifically states that, but the way I read it, it seems to be implied. He certainly points out that the exaggerated kill figures were willingly accepted by the USAAF to justify the heavy losses their bombers were taking.)

If there is really more attention devoted to the accuracy of Clostermann's claims than to that of other fighter pilots, I think it might be some people's psychological reaction to his own discussion of the topic of the accuracy of claims.

Just an observation ... I might be wrong entirely.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Interesting point Henning. I think the USAAF overclaiming was also a result of the sheer number of gunners firing at each fighter destroyed. Even the best intelligence officers would probably have been confused by literally scores of accounts for each German fighter shot down

I believe that at one point the RAF told the AAF that they were overclaiming bomber kills by a factor of 6.

As far as Closterman - I think it was more his attitude and the way he's come across to people that has brought on a lot of this.

The RAF overclaimed horrendously during the BoB, as did the LW. Both sides sometimes claimed to have shot down more aircraft than were destroyed - but I think this was deliberate bodycount propaganda rather than serious claims about machines destroyed.

BombTaxi said:

Interesting point Henning. I think the USAAF overclaiming was also a result of the sheer number of gunners firing at each fighter destroyed. Even the best intelligence officers would probably have been confused by literally scores of accounts for each German fighter shot down

Click to expand...

I agree. There could easily be 2 to 4 gunners claiming the same aircraft.

Hi Flyboyj,

>I believe that at one point the RAF told the AAF that they were overclaiming bomber kills by a factor of 6.

Hm, I think there was actually a certain point in the war when the (confirmed) USAAF bomber gunner claims dropped steeply by a factor like that to a much lower (and more realistical) level. I think I have seen this in the US Strategic Bombing Survey statistics, so it seems the USAAF did address the problem quite decisevely. One interpretation is that it indicates that the overconfirming had not been intentional.

>As far as Closterman - I think it was more his attitude and the way he's come across to people that has brought on a lot of this.

Do you think that some of this might be a result of his French literary style, which is almost the opposite of the British low key, ironic, stereotypical "I was lucky to walk away after pranging my kite, but poor Mac had gone for a Burton" style?

I have also read "The Mouchotte Diaries", and they seem to have some similarities to Clostermann's style, at least that's what I thought. Mouchotte was the Free French fighter leader who saw Clostermann's potential, and who drowned in the channel after becoming separated from everyone, including his wingman Clostermann. From what I read on the internet, this left Clostermann with a deep feeling of guilt and the desire to prove that Mouchotte's death was not his fault. There is some similarity to the story of Bader going down after his wingman "Cocky" Dundas had lost him, except that Bader survived ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Adler,

>I agree. There could easily be 2 to 4 gunners claiming the same aircraft.

Absolutely, but I think this is the obvious part (today).

I suspect it was Clostermann's statement that the US fighter claims were inflated (implied: more than those of the RAF) too that made him some enemies and caused his claims to be checked with more than routine scrutiny.

(I think we all know that overclaiming is inherent and almost inevitable in air combat, but from what I've read, it took the aviation historians quite a while to figure that out. Not that you read much about historians' errors of the past ... hmmm!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hm, I think there was actually a certain point in the war when the (confirmed) USAAF bomber gunner claims dropped steeply by a factor like that to a much lower (and more realistical) level. I think I have seen this in the US Strategic Bombing Survey statistics, so it seems the USAAF did address the problem quite decisevely. One interpretation is that it indicates that the overconfirming had not been intentional.

Click to expand...

Agree

HoHun said:

Do you think that some of this might be a result of his French literary style, which is almost the opposite of the British low key, ironic, stereotypical "I was lucky to walk away after pranging my kite, but poor Mac had gone for a Burton" style?

Click to expand...

Also agree.

HoHun said:

I have also read "The Mouchotte Diaries", and they seem to have some similarities to Clostermann's style, at least that's what I thought. Mouchotte was the Free French fighter leader who saw Clostermann's potential, and who drowned in the channel after becoming separated from everyone, including his wingman Clostermann. From what I read on the internet, this left Clostermann with a deep feeling of guilt and the desire to prove that Mouchotte's death was not his fault. There is some similarity to the story of Bader going down after his wingman "Cocky" Dundas had lost him, except that Bader survived ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Interesting enough!

In some ways I think Closterman became the "Rene FoncK" of WW2.

i've just read Al deere's book and he tells of Martell bollocking sgt clostermann for not staying with him to cover his six in the middle of a scrap !
so maybe he did feel a little guilty about Mouchette !!!

HoHun said:

Hi Adler,

>I agree. There could easily be 2 to 4 gunners claiming the same aircraft.

Absolutely, but I think this is the obvious part (today).

I suspect it was Clostermann's statement that the US fighter claims were inflated (implied: more than those of the RAF) too that made him some enemies and caused his claims to be checked with more than routine scrutiny.

(I think we all know that overclaiming is inherent and almost inevitable in air combat, but from what I've read, it took the aviation historians quite a while to figure that out. Not that you read much about historians' errors of the past ... hmmm!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

I can agree with that. It certainly is a possibility.